Office license and activation?

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and the
person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of whether
it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of the
agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the software
and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

=======
Again, I was interested in hearing opinions here.

BTW, any official word on the EULA can come only from a court since
it's a legal agreement. Microsoft can say what they think it means,
users can say what they think it means and a court will say what it
DOES mean.

So far as I know, Microsoft has chosen not to test it in court. As a
matter of fact, I believe activation is one means of enforcing the EULA
w/o going through legal proceedings and that's why I suspect that the
activation working correctly should mean that Office installed in two
different operating systems on two different partitions of the same PC
does NOT break the EULA.

And I'm still waiting for opinions from MSFT people, MVPs and typical
users. Any attorneys here, please chip in.

Thank you>>

--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Office 2003 Editions explained
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/office/editions.mspx

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and the
person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of whether
it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of the
agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the software
and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

=======
Again, I was interested in hearing opinions here.

BTW, any official word on the EULA can come only from a court since
it's a legal agreement. Microsoft can say what they think it means,
users can say what they think it means and a court will say what it
DOES mean.

So far as I know, Microsoft has chosen not to test it in court. As a
matter of fact, I believe activation is one means of enforcing the EULA
w/o going through legal proceedings and that's why I suspect that the
activation working correctly should mean that Office installed in two
different operating systems on two different partitions of the same PC
does NOT break the EULA.

And I'm still waiting for opinions from MSFT people, MVPs and typical
users. Any attorneys here, please chip in.

Thank you>>

--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Office 2003 Editions explained
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/office/editions.mspx

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and the
person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of whether
it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of the
agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the software
and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

=======
Again, I was interested in hearing opinions here.

BTW, any official word on the EULA can come only from a court since
it's a legal agreement. Microsoft can say what they think it means,
users can say what they think it means and a court will say what it
DOES mean.

So far as I know, Microsoft has chosen not to test it in court. As a
matter of fact, I believe activation is one means of enforcing the EULA
w/o going through legal proceedings and that's why I suspect that the
activation working correctly should mean that Office installed in two
different operating systems on two different partitions of the same PC
does NOT break the EULA.

And I'm still waiting for opinions from MSFT people, MVPs and typical
users. Any attorneys here, please chip in.

Thank you>>

--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Office 2003 Editions explained
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/office/editions.mspx

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and the
person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of whether
it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of the
agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the software
and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

=======
Again, I was interested in hearing opinions here.

BTW, any official word on the EULA can come only from a court since
it's a legal agreement. Microsoft can say what they think it means,
users can say what they think it means and a court will say what it
DOES mean.

So far as I know, Microsoft has chosen not to test it in court. As a
matter of fact, I believe activation is one means of enforcing the EULA
w/o going through legal proceedings and that's why I suspect that the
activation working correctly should mean that Office installed in two
different operating systems on two different partitions of the same PC
does NOT break the EULA.

And I'm still waiting for opinions from MSFT people, MVPs and typical
users. Any attorneys here, please chip in.

Thank you>>

--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Office 2003 Editions explained
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/office/editions.mspx

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and the
person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of whether
it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of the
agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the software
and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

=======
Again, I was interested in hearing opinions here.

BTW, any official word on the EULA can come only from a court since
it's a legal agreement. Microsoft can say what they think it means,
users can say what they think it means and a court will say what it
DOES mean.

So far as I know, Microsoft has chosen not to test it in court. As a
matter of fact, I believe activation is one means of enforcing the EULA
w/o going through legal proceedings and that's why I suspect that the
activation working correctly should mean that Office installed in two
different operating systems on two different partitions of the same PC
does NOT break the EULA.

And I'm still waiting for opinions from MSFT people, MVPs and typical
users. Any attorneys here, please chip in.

Thank you>>

--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Office 2003 Editions explained
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/office/editions.mspx

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and the
person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of whether
it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of the
agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the software
and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

=======
Again, I was interested in hearing opinions here.

BTW, any official word on the EULA can come only from a court since
it's a legal agreement. Microsoft can say what they think it means,
users can say what they think it means and a court will say what it
DOES mean.

So far as I know, Microsoft has chosen not to test it in court. As a
matter of fact, I believe activation is one means of enforcing the EULA
w/o going through legal proceedings and that's why I suspect that the
activation working correctly should mean that Office installed in two
different operating systems on two different partitions of the same PC
does NOT break the EULA.

And I'm still waiting for opinions from MSFT people, MVPs and typical
users. Any attorneys here, please chip in.

Thank you>>

--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Office 2003 Editions explained
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/office/editions.mspx

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" <75214.226(At Beautiful
Downtown)compuserve.com> wrote in

Your prior comment implied that your client wanted more than
just an opinion
------
"Is this legal according to the EULA?" That's the question and
the person involved doesn't care to violate the EULA regardless of
whether it activates properly, he's concerned as to the "letter of
the agreement".
---------
The best source for that, short of a lawyer and court as you
now suggest, and actually activating it through your
scenario would be to contact Microsoft, the supplier of the
software and the licensing. Opinions would not seem to satisfy
your clients needs.

Opinions are what he wants and are all he can get. Discussion of the
EULA can ONLY be opinions, regardless of the source since no court has
ruled on the legality or meaning of the EULA (as far as I know) but the
opinions of MSFT people and MVP types should carry some weight since
they answer questions regarding EULAs all the time and, more than most,
might be aware of MSFT's intention.

BTW, it's already been activated.

 

[XS11E]

I disagree completely with him here. You can't ask Microsoft
whether their licensing policy is legal or not especially they
want Bill Gates to regain the top spot. The best way is to
interpret yourself using normal/ordinary English.

Correct. Maybe I should rephrase. The guy is wondering if installing
Office 2003 (which he owns legally) on two different OSs installed on
two different partitions of one harddrive on one computer is going to
upset MSFT enough to cause them to take legal action against him.

I think he is now convinced that isn't going to happen. My feelings
abut the EULA is that several parts of it won't make it through court
and MSFT is very eager to NOT prosecute anyone under it, remember, this
is just my opinion.

Laws are designed to be self explanatory and If M$ is serious about
its EULA then it would provide essential points on the box itself so
that people can read them before parting money. At present EULA
is on the CD which you can't read unless you open the box and
insert the CD in your PC. By that time, it would be late for you
to return it to your vendor should you decide not to accept the
unfair terms of EULA!!!

While I agree with you, you CAN return the opened software. Plan on
arguing with the head guy at Staples/Best Buy/Fry's etc. for a VERY
long time. I had printed out the EULA and showed him the part that
said to remove the software and return it if you didn't agree with the
Eula, I said I didn't agree and that statement could be considered a
guarantee from the company that they'd re-emburse his store for an
opened copy. I won't do it again, it takes too long and the discussion
can get a bit heated...

M$'s EULA is unfair and subject to challenge in the EU courts.

I don't think anyone will do that here, the challenge won't appear
until MS decides to sue someone for using Office illegally and they
won't go to court and risk having the entire EULA declared illegal for
the price of MS Office.

Watch the space. I alo understand that to pre-empt any decision,
M$ has decided to remove activation of its products from Office
2005 next year!!! Again we have to wait and see if this happens!!.

I wonder about that. I think, as I said elsewhere, activation is one
way to enforce the EULA w/o legal action. So is the decision to block
Windows Updates to illegal install keys on Windows XP. I would think
more of such schemes will appear, not less?

PS, I like MS products generally, they usually do what I need done with
little fuss and I believe MS has the right to be paid for their work
and for their products BUT... I feel some provisions of the EULA are
ridiculous such as the one in question here and...... I still don't
know if there IS a question.

Does what he did comply with the EULA or does it not?

I believe it did.

 

[XS11E]

I disagree completely with him here. You can't ask Microsoft
whether their licensing policy is legal or not especially they
want Bill Gates to regain the top spot. The best way is to
interpret yourself using normal/ordinary English.

Correct. Maybe I should rephrase. The guy is wondering if installing
Office 2003 (which he owns legally) on two different OSs installed on
two different partitions of one harddrive on one computer is going to
upset MSFT enough to cause them to take legal action against him.

I think he is now convinced that isn't going to happen. My feelings
abut the EULA is that several parts of it won't make it through court
and MSFT is very eager to NOT prosecute anyone under it, remember, this
is just my opinion.

Laws are designed to be self explanatory and If M$ is serious about
its EULA then it would provide essential points on the box itself so
that people can read them before parting money. At present EULA
is on the CD which you can't read unless you open the box and
insert the CD in your PC. By that time, it would be late for you
to return it to your vendor should you decide not to accept the
unfair terms of EULA!!!

While I agree with you, you CAN return the opened software. Plan on
arguing with the head guy at Staples/Best Buy/Fry's etc. for a VERY
long time. I had printed out the EULA and showed him the part that
said to remove the software and return it if you didn't agree with the
Eula, I said I didn't agree and that statement could be considered a
guarantee from the company that they'd re-emburse his store for an
opened copy. I won't do it again, it takes too long and the discussion
can get a bit heated...

M$'s EULA is unfair and subject to challenge in the EU courts.

I don't think anyone will do that here, the challenge won't appear
until MS decides to sue someone for using Office illegally and they
won't go to court and risk having the entire EULA declared illegal for
the price of MS Office.

Watch the space. I alo understand that to pre-empt any decision,
M$ has decided to remove activation of its products from Office
2005 next year!!! Again we have to wait and see if this happens!!.

I wonder about that. I think, as I said elsewhere, activation is one
way to enforce the EULA w/o legal action. So is the decision to block
Windows Updates to illegal install keys on Windows XP. I would think
more of such schemes will appear, not less?

PS, I like MS products generally, they usually do what I need done with
little fuss and I believe MS has the right to be paid for their work
and for their products BUT... I feel some provisions of the EULA are
ridiculous such as the one in question here and...... I still don't
know if there IS a question.

Does what he did comply with the EULA or does it not?

I believe it did.

 

[XS11E]

I disagree completely with him here. You can't ask Microsoft
whether their licensing policy is legal or not especially they
want Bill Gates to regain the top spot. The best way is to
interpret yourself using normal/ordinary English.

Correct. Maybe I should rephrase. The guy is wondering if installing
Office 2003 (which he owns legally) on two different OSs installed on
two different partitions of one harddrive on one computer is going to
upset MSFT enough to cause them to take legal action against him.

I think he is now convinced that isn't going to happen. My feelings
abut the EULA is that several parts of it won't make it through court
and MSFT is very eager to NOT prosecute anyone under it, remember, this
is just my opinion.

Laws are designed to be self explanatory and If M$ is serious about
its EULA then it would provide essential points on the box itself so
that people can read them before parting money. At present EULA
is on the CD which you can't read unless you open the box and
insert the CD in your PC. By that time, it would be late for you
to return it to your vendor should you decide not to accept the
unfair terms of EULA!!!

While I agree with you, you CAN return the opened software. Plan on
arguing with the head guy at Staples/Best Buy/Fry's etc. for a VERY
long time. I had printed out the EULA and showed him the part that
said to remove the software and return it if you didn't agree with the
Eula, I said I didn't agree and that statement could be considered a
guarantee from the company that they'd re-emburse his store for an
opened copy. I won't do it again, it takes too long and the discussion
can get a bit heated...

M$'s EULA is unfair and subject to challenge in the EU courts.

I don't think anyone will do that here, the challenge won't appear
until MS decides to sue someone for using Office illegally and they
won't go to court and risk having the entire EULA declared illegal for
the price of MS Office.

Watch the space. I alo understand that to pre-empt any decision,
M$ has decided to remove activation of its products from Office
2005 next year!!! Again we have to wait and see if this happens!!.

I wonder about that. I think, as I said elsewhere, activation is one
way to enforce the EULA w/o legal action. So is the decision to block
Windows Updates to illegal install keys on Windows XP. I would think
more of such schemes will appear, not less?

PS, I like MS products generally, they usually do what I need done with
little fuss and I believe MS has the right to be paid for their work
and for their products BUT... I feel some provisions of the EULA are
ridiculous such as the one in question here and...... I still don't
know if there IS a question.

Does what he did comply with the EULA or does it not?

I believe it did.

 

[XS11E]

I disagree completely with him here. You can't ask Microsoft
whether their licensing policy is legal or not especially they
want Bill Gates to regain the top spot. The best way is to
interpret yourself using normal/ordinary English.

Correct. Maybe I should rephrase. The guy is wondering if installing
Office 2003 (which he owns legally) on two different OSs installed on
two different partitions of one harddrive on one computer is going to
upset MSFT enough to cause them to take legal action against him.

I think he is now convinced that isn't going to happen. My feelings
abut the EULA is that several parts of it won't make it through court
and MSFT is very eager to NOT prosecute anyone under it, remember, this
is just my opinion.

Laws are designed to be self explanatory and If M$ is serious about
its EULA then it would provide essential points on the box itself so
that people can read them before parting money. At present EULA
is on the CD which you can't read unless you open the box and
insert the CD in your PC. By that time, it would be late for you
to return it to your vendor should you decide not to accept the
unfair terms of EULA!!!

While I agree with you, you CAN return the opened software. Plan on
arguing with the head guy at Staples/Best Buy/Fry's etc. for a VERY
long time. I had printed out the EULA and showed him the part that
said to remove the software and return it if you didn't agree with the
Eula, I said I didn't agree and that statement could be considered a
guarantee from the company that they'd re-emburse his store for an
opened copy. I won't do it again, it takes too long and the discussion
can get a bit heated...

M$'s EULA is unfair and subject to challenge in the EU courts.

I don't think anyone will do that here, the challenge won't appear
until MS decides to sue someone for using Office illegally and they
won't go to court and risk having the entire EULA declared illegal for
the price of MS Office.

Watch the space. I alo understand that to pre-empt any decision,
M$ has decided to remove activation of its products from Office
2005 next year!!! Again we have to wait and see if this happens!!.

I wonder about that. I think, as I said elsewhere, activation is one
way to enforce the EULA w/o legal action. So is the decision to block
Windows Updates to illegal install keys on Windows XP. I would think
more of such schemes will appear, not less?

PS, I like MS products generally, they usually do what I need done with
little fuss and I believe MS has the right to be paid for their work
and for their products BUT... I feel some provisions of the EULA are
ridiculous such as the one in question here and...... I still don't
know if there IS a question.

Does what he did comply with the EULA or does it not?

I believe it did.

 

[XS11E]

I disagree completely with him here. You can't ask Microsoft
whether their licensing policy is legal or not especially they
want Bill Gates to regain the top spot. The best way is to
interpret yourself using normal/ordinary English.

Correct. Maybe I should rephrase. The guy is wondering if installing
Office 2003 (which he owns legally) on two different OSs installed on
two different partitions of one harddrive on one computer is going to
upset MSFT enough to cause them to take legal action against him.

I think he is now convinced that isn't going to happen. My feelings
abut the EULA is that several parts of it won't make it through court
and MSFT is very eager to NOT prosecute anyone under it, remember, this
is just my opinion.

Laws are designed to be self explanatory and If M$ is serious about
its EULA then it would provide essential points on the box itself so
that people can read them before parting money. At present EULA
is on the CD which you can't read unless you open the box and
insert the CD in your PC. By that time, it would be late for you
to return it to your vendor should you decide not to accept the
unfair terms of EULA!!!

While I agree with you, you CAN return the opened software. Plan on
arguing with the head guy at Staples/Best Buy/Fry's etc. for a VERY
long time. I had printed out the EULA and showed him the part that
said to remove the software and return it if you didn't agree with the
Eula, I said I didn't agree and that statement could be considered a
guarantee from the company that they'd re-emburse his store for an
opened copy. I won't do it again, it takes too long and the discussion
can get a bit heated...

M$'s EULA is unfair and subject to challenge in the EU courts.

I don't think anyone will do that here, the challenge won't appear
until MS decides to sue someone for using Office illegally and they
won't go to court and risk having the entire EULA declared illegal for
the price of MS Office.

Watch the space. I alo understand that to pre-empt any decision,
M$ has decided to remove activation of its products from Office
2005 next year!!! Again we have to wait and see if this happens!!.

I wonder about that. I think, as I said elsewhere, activation is one
way to enforce the EULA w/o legal action. So is the decision to block
Windows Updates to illegal install keys on Windows XP. I would think
more of such schemes will appear, not less?

PS, I like MS products generally, they usually do what I need done with
little fuss and I believe MS has the right to be paid for their work
and for their products BUT... I feel some provisions of the EULA are
ridiculous such as the one in question here and...... I still don't
know if there IS a question.

Does what he did comply with the EULA or does it not?

I believe it did.